Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Egyptian Journal of Chest Diseases and Tuberculosis (2015) 64, 161–168
HO ST E D BY
The Egyptian Society of Chest Diseases and Tuberculosis
Egyptian Journal of Chest Diseases and Tuberculosis
www.elsevier.com/locate/ejcdtwww.sciencedirect.com
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The use of multi-detector computed tomography
and ultrasonography for evaluation of pleural
lesions
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +20 1005611515.
E-mail address: [email protected] (A.S. Bediwy).
Peer review under responsibility of The Egyptian Society of Chest
Diseases and Tuberculosis.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcdt.2014.09.001
0422-7638 ª 2014 The Egyptian Society of Chest Diseases and Tuberculosis. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserve
Adel Salah Bediwya,*, Manal E. Badawy
b, Alsiagy A. Salama
b, Hanaa A. Zayed
c
a Chest Department, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Egyptb Radio Diagnosis Department, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Egyptc Public Health and Community Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Egypt
Received 7 May 2014Available online 26 September 2014
KEYWORDS
Pleural diseases;
Multi-detector CT;
Ultrasonography
Abstract Background and objective: Multidetector CT (MDCT) and ultrasonography (US) are of
increasing importance for assessment of many pulmonary disorders. Our aim was to evaluate their
role in diagnosis of pleural diseases.
Methods: Patients from Tanta University Hospital who were suspected to have pleural lesions
(symptoms, signs and/or suggestive chest X-ray) during one year period were enrolled in the study.
US and MDCT were done for all of them, then data were reported and analyzed.
Results: Seventy-one patients were included, sixty of them had evident pleural lesions. Chest
pain was the commonest presenting symptom. Malignancy represented 36.7% of pleural lesions,
a percentage similar to lesions due to infection etiology. Free pleural effusions were the most com-
mon pleural lesions followed by pleural thickening. US was diagnostic in 72% of pleural lesions
detectable by MDCT. Multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) images had an additional value than axial
images in 39% of pleural lesions, mostly in cases of pleural thickening, free pleural effusion, pleural
masses, encysted pleural effusions and pleural plaques. On the other hand, the MPR images had the
same value as axial images in empyema and pneumothorax cases.
Conclusion: MDCT is an important noninvasive imaging tool in accurate detection and charac-
terization of pleural lesions with complementary MPR images that solve many diagnostic problems.
Ultrasonography is a safer alternative but with less diagnostic value.ª 2014 The Egyptian Society of Chest Diseases and Tuberculosis. Production and hosting by Elsevier
B.V. All rights reserved.
Introduction
The pleura is derived embryologically from the mesenchyme[1]. It serves an important role in lung function in that it actsas a cushion for the lungs and allows for smooth movement
of the lungs within the chest cavity [2].
d.
162 A.S. Bediwy et al.
Pleural diseases (as pleural effusions, pneumothorax, pleu-ral plaques, diffuse pleural thickening and pleural tumors)affect over 3000 subjects per million population each year.
They can originate from a broad spectrum of pathologies.[3,4].Pleural plaques are deposits of hyalinized collagen fibers in theparietal pleura. They are indicative of asbestos exposure and
typically become visible twenty or more years after the inhala-tion of asbestos fibers, although latency periods of less than tenyears have been observed [5].
Imaging of the pleura can be challenging and it plays animportant role in the diagnosis and subsequent managementof patients with pleural diseases. The presence of a pleuralabnormality is usually suggested following a routine chest
X-ray, with a number of imaging modalities available for fur-ther characterization [6].
Computed tomography (CT) may show abnormalities of
the pleura at an earlier stage than do other imaging techniques.It is also useful in the distinction of pleural from parenchymallung disease, in determining the precise location and extent of
pleural disease, and in certain instances it permits characteriza-tion of tissue density within a lesion by means of analysis ofattenuation coefficients [7].
Multislice (or multi-detector array) CT scanners are capa-ble of acquiring several tomographic slices in a single rotationof the X-ray tube and detector assembly. It reduces examina-tion times presenting advantages, particularly in examinations
where voluntary or involuntary patient motion is a problem[8].
Multi-detector CT (MDCT) is currently considered as a
better modality for the diagnosis of pleural lesions as it pro-vides excellent image quality, it allows excellent visualizationduring the different stages of contrast enhancement, thereby
facilitates detection of small pleural lesions and 3D multipla-nar reformatted images can be used to solve different diagnos-tic problems and to help communicate findings to clinicians
[9].Trans-thoracic ultrasound (US) is an easily performable,
feasible and reliable diagnostic tool, very helpful towarddiagnosing pleural disorders. Lack of ionizing radiation and
ability to be done at bedside have been emphasized as advan-tages of this diagnostic procedure [10]. Apart from having ahigher sensitivity when confronted with the conventional
radiography, the US is able to differentiate solid from cysticlesions [11]. Thus, it is able not only to detect a pleural effu-sion, but also it might be helpful in precising a point to per-
form aspiration.The aim of this work was to assess the role of both multi-
detector CT (MDCT) and trans-thoracic US in diagnosisand evaluation of pleural lesions.
Methods
The current study has been conducted during the period from
October 2012 to October 2013. Patients who were clinicallysuspected to have or provisionally diagnosed as having pleuraldiseases during the study period were included in the study.
Patients were selected from those attending to Tanta Univer-sity Hospital, Egypt. Patients were first evaluated in the Pul-monology clinic of Chest Department and then referred to
the radiologist.
Study design
We performed a prospective cross sectional study. It wasconducted according to the guidelines of ethics committee ofour university and was approved by our institutional ethics
committee and review board; all patients gave us a writteninformed consent to be included and imaged in our study.
Inclusion criteria
� Presence of one or more of symptoms of pleural diseases ascough, dyspnea, talepnea, pleuritic or dull aching chest painor chest heaviness, with or without palpitation, fever,
weight loss, night fever or night sweat.� Presence of one or more of signs of pleural diseases asunilateral bulge or retraction of the chest wall, unilateraldecreased chest expansion, mediastinal shift, diminished
tactile vocal fremitus, diminished vocal resonance, changein percussion note (tympanitic resonance, impaired note,dullness or stony dullness), diminished intensity of breath
sound, or pleural rub.
All patients were submitted to
1. Careful history taking:
With emphasis on the onset, course and duration of the pre-senting complaint and the risk factors (e.g. asbestos exposure,T.B), and past history of previous operation or receiving che-
motherapy or radiotherapy for any malignancy and its site.
2. Thorough clinical examination:
3. Laboratory investigations:
Routine laboratory investigations were done to all patients
that included: complete blood picture, blood urea and serumcreatinine.
Other investigations were needed in some cases to help
diagnosis as tuberculin skin test, sputum analysis for tubercu-losis, investigations for collagen diseases, liver function tests,or pleural effusion analysis (chemical, culture and sensitivity,adenosine deaminase, or cytological examination). In some
cases, the diagnosis was confirmed by doing pleural biopsyand histo-pathological examination.
4. Chest X-ray:
For all cases in Postero-anterior view and for some cases in
Lateral view.
5. Ultrasonography (US):
It was done for all patients. Transthoracic gray-scale chestUS examination was performed with a 3.5 MHz curvilinearprobe that allowed visualization of the deeper structures, and
the sector scan field allowed a wider field of view through asmall acoustic window. The pleura was surveyed with the cur-vilinear probe. Once an abnormality has been identified, a
high-resolution 7.5 MHz linear probe was used to providedetailed depiction of any chest wall, pleural, or peripheral lungabnormality.
Table 1 Distribution of cases according to demographic data,
presenting symptoms and site of pleural lesions.
Item No (%)
Cases 60 (100.0)
Age: X± SD 50.5 ± 7.8 years
Sex:
Male 39 (65.0)
Female 21 (35.0)
Presenting symptoms:
Chest pain: 40 (66.7)
Cough: 32 (53.3)
Fever: 14 (23.3)
Breathlessness: 12 (20.0)
Hemoptysis: 2(3.3)
Site of the lesion:
Bilateral: 20 (33.3)
Right: 24 (40.0)
Left: 16 (26.7)
X± SD: mean ± standard deviation. No.: number.%: percentage.
N.B: Patient may be presented with more than one symptom.
Table 2 Distribution of cases according to the etiology of
pleural lesions.
Etiology of pleural lesions No (%)
Hypoalbuminaemia 4 (6.7)
Heart failure 2 (3.3)
Infection 22 (36.0)
Collagen disease 3 (5.0)
Asbestos exposure 5 (8.3)
Trauma 2 (3.3)
Metastasis 12 (20.0)
Mesothelioma 10 (16.7)
Total 60 (100.0)
Multidetector CT and ultrasonography for evaluation of pleural lesions 163
Patients were asked to raise their arms above their heads toincrease the rib space distance and facilitate scanning with the
patient in erect or recumbent positions. The posterior chest wasbest imaged with the patient sitting upright, while the anteriorand lateral chest were assessed in the lateral decubitus position.
6. Multi-detector Computed tomography (MDCT):
The examination was done at the CT unit of Tanta Univer-
sity Hospital with 16 slice multi detector CT with scan timeabout 4 s.
In general, the pleura was best evaluated using the standard
technique CT of the chest.
� Patient preparation:
Usually no preparation was recommended in CT pleuralexamination except for the patient being fasting for 6 h for
the possibility of contrast media administration.
� Patient position:
Patients were usually scanned in the supine position. Toprevent streak artifacts from appearing on skeletal structuresof the upper extremity, patients were scanned with arms ele-
vated above the head.
Scanning with patient in the prone or decubitus positionwas sometimes helpful, particularly for evaluation of pleuraldiseases. Free pleural effusions shift to the dependant portion
of the pleural space, when the patient is moved from the supineposition to the prone or decubitus position, whereas loculatedeffusions or fibrosis shows little or no change.
In patients with a loculated collection of air and fluid in thepleural space from a bronchopleural fistula or empyema,movement of the air with changes in patient’s position enables
precise delineation of the size and shape of the cavity.
� Window setting:
The usual window settings were for the lung (windowwidth = 1000–2000 HU, window level = 800 HU), for themediastinum and pleura (window width = 30 HU, window
level = 30 HU).
� Contrast media:
Intravenous automatic bolus injection of non-ionic contrastinto the antecubital vein was needed in some cases with a dose
of 1–1.5 ml/kg.
� Indication of contrast media administration:
1. Differentiation of vascular structures in the mediastinum
and hila from pleural lesions.2. Differentiating vascular tumors from cysts.
� Scan parameters:
Tube current 130 kV and 400 mAs, slice thickness 10 mm,
collimation of 1 mm, pitch 0.6 and rotation time 1.0 s, topo-graphic length 512 mm with scan delay 35 s.
� Image reconstruction:
Reconstructed images were processed in coronal and sagit-tal planes with slice thickness 3–5 mm and 0.6 slice interval.
Patients who had no detectable pleural lesion after doing allradiological investigations, were excluded from the study.
The etiology of pleural lesions and the final diagnosis were
reached through combined diagnostic approach including his-tory, general and local examination, radiological examination,pleural fluid analysis when applicable, pleural biopsy if no
diagnosis was reached by other means (either CT guided, USguided or thoracoscopic), and open biopsy for those who werenot diagnosed by previously mentioned methods.
Statistical analysis of data
The collected data were tabulated and statistically analyzedusing SPSS (statistical package for social science) version 16
on Personal Computer. The level of significance was adoptedat p < 0.05.
Two types of statistics were done:
(a) Descriptive statistics including: percentage (%) mean (x)and standard deviation (SD).
(b) Analytic statistics including: Chi-squared test (v2): wasused to study association between two qualitativevariables.
Table 3 Distribution of cases according to types of pleural lesions detected by MDCT, ultrasound, and Chest X- ray.
Types of pleural lesions MDCT US Chest X-ray P-value
No. of cases % No. of cases % No. of cases %
Free pleural effusion 24 100.0 20 83.3 16 66.7 0.008*
Encysted pleural effusion 10 100.0 6 60.0 4 40.0 0.014*
Empyema 4 100.0 4 100.0 2 50.0 0.090
Pneumothorax 2 100.0 1 50.0 2 100.0 0.301
Pleural thickening 20 100.0 14 70.0 2 10.0 0.0001*
Pleural calcification or plaque 10 100.0 6 60.0 4 40.0 0.014*
Pleural nodule or mass 12 100.0 8 66.7 2 16.7 0.0001*
Total lesions 82 100.0 59 72.0 32 39.0 0.00001*
MDCT: multi-detector computed tomography. US: ultrasound. No.: number. N.B: more than one type of lesion may be detected in one case.* Statistically significant.
Table 4 Additional diagnostic value of multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) in the studied cases compared to axial images.
Types of pleural lesions Diagnostic value of MPR images P-value
Same diagnostic value Additional diagnostic value
No. % No. %
Free pleural effusion (24) 16 66.7 8 33.3 0.02*
Encysted pleural effusion (10) 6 60.0 4 40.0 0.371
Empyema (4) 4 100.0 0 0.0 0.004*
Pneumothorax (2) 2 2.5 0 0.0 0.045*
Pleural thickening (20) 11 55.0 9 45.0 0.53
Pleural calcification or plaque(10) 6 60.0 4 40.0 0.371
Pleural nodule or mass (12) 5 41.7 7 58.3 0.414
Total lesions (82) 50 61.0 32 39.0 0.004*
MPR: multiplanar reconstruction.* statistically significant.
Figure 1 Case number 1: A 60 year old male patient, presented with left sided chest pain. A: Axial cuts mediastinal window. B: Axial
cuts pulmonary window. C: Coronal reconstruction cuts mediastinal window. D: Sagittal reconstruction cuts mediastinal window. E & F:
US images showing polypoidal soft tissue pleural mass with mild effusion. Contrast enhanced MDCT &US showing a large ill defined soft
tissue mass encasing the left lung along the course of costal and mediastinal pleura associated with mild pleural effusion. Biopsy results
came as malignant mesothelioma.
164 A.S. Bediwy et al.
Figure 2 Case number 2: A 59 year old male patient, presented with cough, chest pain, on examination, diminished breath sounds on the
right lung. A: Axial cuts mediastinal window. B: Axial cuts pulmonary window. C: Coronal reconstruction cuts mediastinal window. D:
US image. Contrast enhanced MDCT & pleural US showing marked right pleural effusion with pleural thickening and collapse of the
right lung.
Multidetector CT and ultrasonography for evaluation of pleural lesions 165
Results
Patients who were eligible to be included the study and agreedto share were seventy-one. Eleven of them were excluded
because after doing chest X-ray, chest ultrasound and chestCT, no pleural lesions were found (five cases of pneumoniawith no pleural involvement, four had pulmonary fibrosis
without pleural lesion, 2 cases of lung abscess with no pleuralinvolvement). So, sixty patients (39 males & 21 females) wereincluded. Their ages ranged from 12 to 67 years with a meanage of 50.5 ± 7.8 years.
Demographic data, presenting symptoms, and site of thelesions are described in Table 1. Etiologies of pleural lesionsare described in Table 2.
Thirty-eight patients (63.3%) had benign pleural lesionsand twenty-two (36.7%) patients had malignant pleural lesions(Table 2).
Different types of pleural lesions detected by MDCT, ultra-sound (US), and Chest X-ray in the studied cases are shown inTable 3. Eighty-two lesions (100%) were detected by MDCT,fifty-nine lesions (72%) were detected by ultrasound and
thirty-two lesions (39%) were detected by chest X-ray.MPR images had an additional value than axial images in
32 pleural lesions (39%), mostly in nine cases of pleural thick-
ening, eight cases of free pleural effusion, seven cases of pleuralmasses and four cases in both encysted pleural effusion andpleural plaque. On the other hand, the MPR images had the
same value as axial images in empyema and pneumothoraxcases (Table 4).
Five of our cases are presented in Figs. 1–5. MDCT images,MPR images (coronal and sagittal), and US images are shown.
Discussion
Multi-detector CT (MDCT) allows detailed evaluation of thepleura and differentiation of benign from malignant pleural
disease [12].In our study, eighty-two lesions (100%) were detected by
MDCT in sixty patients. Fifty-nine lesions (72%) were
detected by ultrasound, while only thirty-two lesions (39%)were detected by chest X-ray.
In the present study, pleural effusion was the most common
pleural lesion where it was reported in 34 (41.5%) lesions. Thiswas in agreement with Rahman et al. [13] who reported thatpleural effusion is the most common pleural abnormality result-ing from various types of diseases ‘‘inflammatory, traumatic,
cardiovascular, autoimmune, metabolic and neoplastic’’.In our study, we found that MDCT was sensitive in diag-
nosing all cases of pleural lesions, and this result was in accor-
dance with Raj et al. [14] who stated that MDCT allowsdetailed evaluation of the pleura and differentiation of benignfrom malignant pleural disease. Adequate enhancement of the
pleura enables differentiation of the thickened pleura fromadjacent effusion or aerated or collapsed lung.
In our study ultrasound (US) diagnosed 83.3% of free
pleural effusion lesions, 60% of encysted pleural effusionlesions and diagnosed all empyma lesions, however it was lesssensitive in diagnosis cases with pleural plaques, calcifications,
Figure 3 Case number 3: A 62 year old female patient, presented with cough and right sided chest pain. A: Axial cuts mediastinal
window. B: Axial cuts pulmonary window. C: Coronal reconstruction cuts mediastinal window. D: US picture showing mild right free
pleural effusion. Contrast enhanced MDCT showing mild right free pleural effusion with multiple subpleural nodules. However US
picture showing mild right pleural effusion and the nodules could not be depicted.
Figure 4 Case number 4: A 64 year old male patient, presented with chronic cough with a previous history of old TB. A: Axial cuts
mediastinal window. B: Axial cuts pulmonary window. C: Coronal reconstruction cuts mediastinal window. D & E: US images. Contrast
enhanced MDCT & US showing multiple calcified linear plaques associated with minimal pleural thickening & rim of effusion.
166 A.S. Bediwy et al.
Figure 5 Case number 5: A 66 year old female patient, presented with chronic cough. A: Axial cuts mediastinal window. B: Axial cuts
pulmonary window. C: Coronal reconstruction cuts mediastinal window. D: Sagittal reconstruction cuts mediastinal window. E & F: US
images showing mild left pleural effusion & the encysted in the left inter-lobar fissure could not be detected. Contrast enhanced MDCT
showing mild left free and encysted effusion with pleural thickening of interlobar fissure with minimal fluid collection within the fissure.
Multidetector CT and ultrasonography for evaluation of pleural lesions 167
thickening and pleural nodules or masses. These results were inagreement with Koh et al. [15] who reported that trans-thoracic
US of the chest is useful in the evaluation of a wide range ofpleural diseases.
Also Sikora et al. [16] stated that transthoracic US serves asa more accurate imaging tool than chest radiography for the
diagnosis of pleural effusions and allows discrimination ofpleural effusions from other lung pathology that may appearsimilar on a chest radiograph. Furthermore, US can allow
diagnosis of complicated pleural effusions, such as empyemasthat may be associated with a higher risk for a drainageprocedure.
In the current study approximately 42% of pleural collec-tions were not diagnosed by chest X-ray. This figure is higherthan what was reported by Koenig et al. [17] who conducted astudy of 61 patients with pneumonia and parapneumonic effu-
sion and showed that chest X-rays, taken as anteroposterior,posteroanterior, or lateral, all missed more than 10% of para-pneumonic effusions. The difference may be because some of
our patients had small pleural effusions and also because someof them had encysted effusions.
In the present study MDCT was highly sensitive in the diag-
nosis of all cases presented with pleural nodules or masses.This result coincided with Wang et al. [18] and Tyszko et al.[19] who stated that CT is the most sensitive modality used
for the assessment of mesothelioma and pleural masses.In our study chest radiographs were a non-sensitive imag-
ing technique for diagnosing pleural thickening, pleural calcifi-cation or plaque and pleural nodules or masses. These results
were in full agreement with Muller [9] who reported that chestradiographs are of limited utility and are non-sensitive in dem-onstrating pleural opacities and plaques which may extend
around and encase the lung, also reduction in volume of theaffected hemithorax is common resulting in shift of the medi-astinum toward the lesion.
MPR images in studied cases were able to provide compa-rable accuracy to that of the trans-axial MDCT which could be
explained by the synergic effect of MPR images in revealingthe tumor extent of malignant mesothelioma as MPR imagescould reveal the longitudinal extent of the enhancing tumorvolume. Other studies like Honda et al. [20] had the same
conclusion.
Conclusion
Multi-detector CT (MDCT) is an important noninvasive imag-ing tool in accurate detection and characterization of pleurallesions with complementary multiplanar reconstruction
(MPR) images that solve many diagnostic problems. Ultraso-nography is a safer alternative but with less diagnostic value.
Conflict of interest
None declared.
References
[1] M.C. Renda, A. Giambona, E. Fecarotta, F. Leto, G.
Makrydimas, D. Renda, G. Damiani, M.C. Jakil, F. Picciotto,
A. Piazza, M. Valtieri, A. Maggio, Embryo-fetal erythroid
megaloblasts in the human coelomic cavity, J. Cell. Physiol. 225
(2) (2010) 385–389.
[2] Delrue L, Gosselin R, Ilsen B, Landeghem AV, de Mey J, and
Duyck P. Difficulties in the interpretation of chest radiography.
In: Coche EE et al., editors. Comparative interpretation of ct
and standard radiography of the chest, medical radiology. Berlin
Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2011. p. 27–49. doi: 10.1007/978-3-
540-79942-9_2 [chapter 2].
[3] S.R. Schiffman, V. Datta, J. Wandtke, S.K. Hobbs, Imaging
features of chest wall tumors, Contemp. Diagnos. Radiol.
(CDR) 35 (2) (2012) 1–5.
168 A.S. Bediwy et al.
[4] A.D.L. Sihoe, R.H.L. Wong, A.T.H. Lee, L.S. Lau, N.Y.Y.
Leung, K.I. Law, A.P.C. Yim, Severe acute respiratory
syndrome complicated by spontaneous pneumothorax, Chest
125 (6) (2004) 2345–2351.
[5] T.C. Larson, C.A. Meyer, V. Kapil, J.W. Gurney, R.D. Tarver,
C.B. Black, J.E. Lockey, Workers with libby amphibole
exposure: retrospective identification and progression of
radiographic changes, Radiology 255 (3) (2010) 924.
[6] S. Ryan, M. McNicholas, S.J. Eustace, Anatomy for Diagnostic
Imaging, third ed., Elsevier, 2007 (Chapter 5).
[7] L. Clelland, B. Mahesh, C. Ratnatunga, Recurrent localized
fibrous tumor of the pleura, Ann. Thorac. Surg. 82 (1) (2006)
342–345.
[8] M.A. Lewis, S. Edyvean, Patient dose reduction in CT, Br. J.
Radiol. 78 (2005) 880–883.
[9] N.L. Muller, Imaging of the pleura, Radiology 186 (1993) 297.
[10] S. Singh, N.C. Kajal, A. Singh, V.K. Bhagat, Role of
sonography in diagnosis of pleural and lung diseases, Lung
India 22 (2005) 97–98.
[11] N.J. Stephens, J.M. Pilcher, The diagnostic role of ultrasound in
the chest, Ultrasound 15 (3) (2007) 148–158.
[12] R.E. Benamore, M.J. O’Doherty, J.J. Entwisle, Use of imaging
in the management of malignant pleural mesothelioma, Clin.
Radiol. 60 (2005) 1237–1247.
[13] N.M. Rahman, S.J. Chapman, R.J.O. Davies, Pleural effusion: a
structured approach to care, Br. Med. Bull. 72 (1) (2004) 31–47.
[14] V. Raj, R. Kirke, M.J. Bankart, J.J. Entwisle, Multidetector CT
imaging of pleura: comparison of two contrast infusion
protocols, Br. J. Radiol. 84 (1005) (2011) 796–799.
[15] D.M. Koh, S. Burke, N. Davies, S.P. Padley, Transthoracic US
of the chest: clinical uses and applications, RadioGraphics 22 (1)
(2002) e1.
[16] Sikora K, Perera P, Mailhot T, Mandavia D. Ultrasound for the
detection of pleural effusions and guidance of the thoracentesis
procedure. ISRN Emergency Medicine 2012; 2012 [article ID
676524: 10 pages].
[17] S.J. Koenig, M. Narasimhan, P.H. Mayo, Thoracic
ultrasonography for the pulmonary specialist, Chest 140 (2011)
1332–1341.
[18] Z.J. Wang, G.P. Reddy, M.B. Gotway, C.B. Higgins, D.M.
Jablons, M. Ramaswamy, R.A. Hawkins, W.R. Webb,
Malignant pleural mesothelioma: evaluation with CT, MR
imaging, and PET, RadioGraphics 24 (2004) 105–119.
[19] S.M. Tyszko, G.D. Marano, R.J. Tallaksen, K.A. Gyure, Best
cases from the AFIP: malignant mesothelioma, RadioGraphics
27 (1) (2007) 259–264.
[20] O. Honda, M. Yanagawa, A. Inoue, A. Kikuyama, S. Yoshida,
H. Sumikawa, K. Tobino, M. Koyama, N. Tomiyama, Image
quality of multiplanar reconstruction of pulmonary CT scans
using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, Br. J. Radiol.
84 (2011) 335–341.